9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the view that the defence to the winding up petition is not based on a bonafide dispute substantial or otherwise. It appears to be meritless. The respondent company M/s. Sequel Infocom Private Limited has prima facie neglected to pay its debt despite a statutory notice under Section 434(1)(a) of the Act of 1956 without a bonafide dispute at all being made out and thus in the eyes of law is prima facie deemed to be insolvent. The petition is in the circumstances admitted. The Directors of the respondent company M/s. Sequel Infocom Private Limited are directed to file a statement of affairs of the company as of 31-3-2016 and furnish their current addresses. The citation of admission of winding up petition being admitted be published in two daily newspapers, one in vernacular and the other English i.e. Dainik Navjyoti, Jaipur Edition and Times of India, New Delhi Edition respectively. The citation be also published in the Official Gazette. All costs towards publication to the account of the petitioner company. - S.B. Company Petition No.23/2010 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2016 - MR. ALOK SHARMA, J. For The Petitioner : Ms. Sonal Singh, For The Respondent : Mr. Raje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 stated that litigation for the due amount would be of no purpose as the dispute could be sorted out without approaching the court. It was acknowledged that the respondent company owed some money to the petitioner company but the extent of outstanding amount claimed under statutory notice dated 4-5-2010 was not admitted because of some deviations . It was further stated that the respondent company was willing to pay bonafide amount but for which some reasonable time was sought as it was not immediately in a position to pay. On receipt of the letter dated 27-5-2010 in reply to statutory notice dated 4-5-2010, the petitioner company vide its letter dated 14-6- 2010 called upon the respondent company to furnish in writing a detailed proposal for settling the outstanding payment under a schedule of payment. Nothing however moved forward. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioner company has approached this court seeking the winding up of the respondent company for reason of its inability to discharge its debts arising in the course of its commercial operations rendering it in eye of law commercially insolvent. An interim reply to the winding up petition has been fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some of which returned for reason of faulty display were not replaced due to which the respondent company suffered huge losses. It was finally submitted that a laptop was sold to one Siddarth Raval working with the petitioner company in Orissa but payment therefore was not received which is thus chargeable to the petitioner company. It was prayed that in the circumstances a bonafide dispute on substantial grounds obtains qua the outstanding and allegedly due amounts claimed by the petitioner company. And therefore the winding up petition should not be allowed by the court to be used as a means of recovery of disputed amounts by the petitioner company. It was prayed that the winding up petition therefore be dismissed. In rejoinder to the reply to winding up petition, the petitioner company has emphatically denied the allegations and facts asserted by the respondent company in its reply to winding up petition. It was submitted that in fact in its reply dated 27-5-2010 to the statutory notice dated 4-5- 2010 the respondent company had substantially admitted the outstanding due amount of ₹ 1,00,54,187.24 and now the defence set up in reply to the winding up petition is a mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;s reply dated 27-5-2010 thereto. Mr. Rajeev Surana counsel for the respondent company submitted that a bonafide dispute based on substantial grounds with regard to alleged undischarged debt claimed by the petitioner company obtained. Heard. Considered. It is not in dispute that a demand notice dated 21-4-2010 and the statutory notice dated 4-5-2010 was issued by the petitioner company to the respondent company with regard to outstanding of ₹ 1,00,54,187.24 with reference to goods supplied under various invoices between 13-12- 2007 and 4-6-2010. List of invoices with date/s and amount due under each invoice was annexed. The said notices were received by the respondent company. In response vide reply dated 27-5-2010, under the hand of its counsel, the respondent company substantially admitted to its liability with regard to amounts claimed under the statutory notice, complaining however without any specifics of the demand being excessive. However, it was clearly stated in the reply that some amount was due and would be paid for which some reasonable time was sought as the respondent company stated it was under financial difficulty. No defence now taken up in the reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispute with regard to the debt claimed by the petitioner company; (iv) Whether the defence to the winding up petition set up is one of the substance. The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Industries Vs. NATL Tehcnologies Limited [(2009)3 SCC 527] relying on its earlier judgment in the case of Madhusudan Gordhandas co. Vs. Madhu woollen Industries (P) Limited [(1971)3 SCC 632] has held that where there is no dispute that the debt was outstanding against the respondent company but exact amount could be a question, a winding up order can yet be passed where one way or the other it was evident that the respondent company was unable to discharge its debt to an extent over the statutorily prescribed minimum amount, presently ₹ 1 lac. It was held that it would be quite unjust to refuse winding up to a petitioner who was admittedly owed money which has not been paid by the respondent company. In the facts of the case recorded hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the respondent company M/s. Sequel Infocom Private Limited has prima facie neglected to pay its debt despite a statutory notice under Section 434(1)(a) of the Act of 1956 without a bonafide dispute at all being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
